£400,000 a year is a hefty wedge for a job in public service. One assumes this helped the Solicitors Regulation Authority bulk up its shortlist for the chief executive’s job ahead of Paul Philip’s retirement last year.
There’s no easy money in the Cube’s c-suite, however. Not these days. As my colleague John Hyde observed on Monday, your regulator is adrift upon a sea of troubles and is still taking on water. As if to underline his point that same day, another law firm accumulator went down with all hands, leaving staff devastated and prompting all-too-familiar questions.
What did the SRA know and when? How much will it cost solicitors to pick up the tab for another mega-intervention? Shades of SSB and Axiom Ince?
For Sarah Rapson, Philip’s successor, the day got worse. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered the SRA to pay the defendant’s costs over its failed prosecution of an alleged ‘SLAPP’ case. Carter-Ruck’s Claire Gill wants £1m. The SRA had warned that defeat would have a ‘chilling’ effect on its anti-SLAPPs initiative. Will the frost now form?
Rapson, of course, does at least have novelty on her side. She is untarnished by the regulator’s many recent woes. Her first 100 days can hardly be described as a honeymoon period, but the new boss must be given ample opportunity to turn things around.
One priority suggested by some lawyers is recalibrating the SRA’s approach to prosecutions. More haste, less speed – and perhaps most importantly, fewer bandwagons.
The SLAPPs debacle has parallels with the SRA’s string of failed prosecutions over the Daily Mail immigration sting – and, indeed, with its high-profile and doomed prosecution of Leigh Day back in 2017 over actions against the Ministry of Defence.
Politicians and their press outriders howl for action on a populist pet cause. The SRA scrambles to attention and arguably acts precipitately. Professional lives can be ruined – as they have been over the Mail story.
A lengthier period of interrogation of the merits of such cases – deaf to noises off – might yield better outcomes. Regulation of lawyers is supposed to be fully independent. It doesn’t always appear that way.
1 Reader's comment